Biodiversity and Conservation

, Volume 26, Issue 2, pp 383–399 | Cite as

Generating spatial data for marine conservation and management

  • Lindsay Aylesworth
  • Ratanawaree Phoonsawat
  • Pholphisin Suvanachai
  • Amanda C. J. Vincent
Original Paper
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Coastal and marine biodiversity

Abstract

Do fishers know best when it comes to identifying areas with rare and depleted fish species? The global conservation crisis demands that managers marshal all available datasets to inform conservation management plans for depleted species, yet the level of trust placed in local knowledge remains uncertain. This study compares four methods for inferring species distributions of an internationally traded, rare and depleted genus of marine fishes (Hippocampus spp.): the use of (i) fisher interviews; (ii) government research trawls, (iii) scientific diving surveys, and (iv) citizen science contributions. We analyzed these four datasets at the genus and individual species levels to evaluate our conclusions about seahorse spatial occurrence, diversity of species present and the cost effectiveness of sampling effort. We found that fisher knowledge provided more information on our data-poor fish genus at larger spatial scales, with less effort, and for a cheaper price than all other datasets. One drawback was that fishers were unable to provide data down to the species level. People embarking on conservation endeavors for data-poor species may wish to begin with fisher interviews and use these to inform the application of government research, scientific diving, or citizen science programs.

Keywords

Citizen science Data-poor Hippocampus Local knowledge Scientific surveys Thailand 

Supplementary material

10531_2016_1248_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (57 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 56 kb)
10531_2016_1248_MOESM2_ESM.pdf (734 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (PDF 733 kb)
10531_2016_1248_MOESM3_ESM.pdf (1 mb)
Supplementary material 3 (PDF 1044 kb)
10531_2016_1248_MOESM4_ESM.pdf (40 kb)
Supplementary material 4 (PDF 39 kb)
10531_2016_1248_MOESM5_ESM.pdf (1.6 mb)
Supplementary material 5 (PDF 1620 kb)
10531_2016_1248_MOESM6_ESM.pdf (83 kb)
Supplementary material 6 (PDF 82 kb)

References

  1. Anuchiracheeva S, Demaine H, Shivakoti P, Ruddle K (2003) Systematizing local knowledge using GIS: fisheries management in Bang Saphan Bay, Thailand. Ocean Coast Manag 46:1049–1068. doi:10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2004.01.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aylesworth L, Loh T-L, Rongrongmuang W, Vincent ACJ (2015) Approaches to locating cryptic and data-poor marine fishes for conservation. In: Fisheries Centre Working Paper Series, vol 100. University of British, Columbia, pp 1–29Google Scholar
  3. Beaudreau AH, Levin PS (2014) Advancing the use of local ecological knowledge for assessing data-poor species in coastal ecosystems. Ecol Appl 24:244–256. doi:10.1890/13-0817.1 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Beaudreau AH, Levin PS, Norman KC (2011) Using folk taxonomies to understand stakeholder perceptions for species conservation. Conserv Lett 4:451–463. doi:10.1111/j.1755-263X.2011.00199.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bender LC, Weisenberger ME, Rosas-Rosas OC (2014) Occupancy and habitat correlates of javelinas in the southern San Andres Mountains, New Mexico. J Mammal 95:1–8. doi:10.1644/13-MAMM-A-151 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bennett NJ, Dearden P (2014) Why local people do not support conservation: community perceptions of marine protected area livelihood impacts, governance and management in Thailand. Mar Policy 44:107–116. doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2013.08.017 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Berkes F (2009) Evolution of co-management: role of knowledge generation, bridging organizations and social learning. J Environ Manag 90:1692–1702. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2008.12.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bohensky EL, Maru Y (2011) Indigenous knowledge, science, and resilience: what have we learned from a decade of international literature on “integration”? Ecol Soc 16:6Google Scholar
  9. Braschler B (2009) Successfully implementing a citizen-scientist approach to insect monitoring in a resource-poor country. Bioscience 59:103–104. doi:10.1525/bio.2009.59.2.2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Byg A, Theilade I, Nielsen MR, Lund JF (2012) Local ecological knowledge and its relevance for management and research. Dev Briefs Policy 16:1–5Google Scholar
  11. Cadrin SX, Howe AB, Correia SJ, Currier TP (1995) Evaluating the effects of two coastal mobile gear fishing closures on finfish abundance off Cape Cod. N Am J Fish Manag 15:300–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Castellanos-Galindo GA, Cantera JR, Espinosa S, Mejía-Ladino LM (2011) Use of local ecological knowledge, scientist’s observations and grey literature to assess marine species at risk in a tropical eastern Pacific estuary. Aquat Conserv Mar Freshw Ecosyst 21:37–48. doi:10.1002/aqc.1163 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chape S, Harrison J, Spalding M, Lysenko I (2005) Measuring the extent and effectiveness of protected areas as an indicator for meeting global biodiversity targets. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 360:443–455. doi:10.1098/rstb.2004.1592 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. CITES (2012) Review of significant trade in specimens of Appendix-II speciesGoogle Scholar
  15. CITES (2013) Building in-country capacity to undertake non-detriment findings with regard to Hippocampus species in Indonesia, Thailand and Viet Nam. GenevaGoogle Scholar
  16. Crall AW, Newman GJ, Stohlgren TJ et al (2011) Assessing citizen science data quality: an invasive species case study. Conserv Lett 4:433–442. doi:10.1111/j.1755-263X.2011.00196.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dickinson JL, Zuckerberg B, Bonter DN (2010) Citizen science as an ecological research tool: challenges and benefits. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 41:149–172. doi:10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-102209-144636 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Douvere F (2008) The importance of marine spatial planning in advancing ecosystem-based sea use management. Mar Policy 32:762–771. doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2008.03.021 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gilchrist G, Mallory M, Merkel F (2005) Can local ecological knowledge contribute to wildlife management? Case studies of migratory birds. Ecol Soc 10:20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Golden AS, Naisilsisili W, Ligairi I, Drew JA (2014) Combining natural history collections with fisher knowledge for community-based conservation in Fiji. PLoS One. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0098036 Google Scholar
  21. Hall GB, Moore A, Knight P, Hankey N (2009) The extraction and utilization of local and scientific geospatial knowledge within the Bluff oyster fishery, New Zealand. J Environ Manag 90:2055–2070. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2007.08.022 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hamilton RJ, Giningele M, Aswani S, Ecochard JL (2012) Fishing in the dark-local knowledge, night spearfishing and spawning aggregations in the Western Solomon Islands. Biol Conserv 145:246–257. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2011.11.020 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Johannes RE (1998) The case for data-less marine resource management: examples from tropical nearshore fin fisheries. Trends Ecol Evol 13:243–246CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Johannes RE (2000) Ignore fishers’ knowledge and miss the boat. Fish Fish 1:257–271. doi:10.1046/j.1467-2979.2000.00019.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Katsanevakis S, Weber A, Pipitone C et al (2012) Monitoring marine populations and communities: methods dealing with imperfect detectability. Aquat Biol 16:31–52. doi:10.3354/ab00426 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Koslow JA (2009) The role of acoustics in ecosystem-based fishery management. ICES J Mar Sci J du Cons 66(6):966–973CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lewis AE, Hammill M, Power M et al (2009) Movement and aggregation of Eastern Hudson Bay beluga whales (Delphinapterus leucas): a comparison of patterns found through satellite telemetry and Nunavik traditional ecological knowledge. Arctic 62:13–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lorenz M (1995) International co-operative programme on assessment and monitoring of air pollution effects on forests-ICP Forests. Water Air Soil Pollut 85:1221–1226. doi:10.1007/BF00477148 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lorenzen K, Steneck RS, Warner RR et al (2010) The spatial dimensions of fisheries: putting it all in place. Bull Mar Sci 86:169–177Google Scholar
  30. Lunn KE, Dearden P (2006) Monitoring small-scale marine fisheries: an example from Thailand’s Ko Chang archipelago. Fish Res 77:60–71. doi:10.1016/j.fishres.2005.08.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lymer D, Funge-Smith S, Miao W (2010) Status and potential of fisheries and aquaculture in Asia and the Pacific 2010. RAP Publication, RomeGoogle Scholar
  32. Mackenzie DI, Nichols JD, Lachman GB et al (2002) Estimating site occupancy rates when detection probabilities are less than one. Ecology 83:2248–2255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mallory ML, Gilchrist HG, Fontaine AJ, Akearok JA (2003) Local ecological knowledge of ivory gull declines in Arctic Canada. Arctic 56:293–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. McCauley DJ, Pinsky ML, Palumbi SR et al (2015) Marine defaunation: animal loss in the global ocean. Science. doi:10.1126/science.1255641 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. McClanahan L, Ferretti F, Baum JK (2012) From archives to conservation: why historical data are needed to set baselines for marine animals and ecosystems. Conserv Lett 5:349–359. doi:10.1111/j.1755-263X.2012.00253.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Moller H, Berkes F (2004) Combining science and traditional ecological knowledge: monitoring populations for co-management. Ecol Soc 9:2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Morgan AC, Burgess GH (2005) Fishery-dependent sampling: total catch, effort and catch composition. In: Management techniques for elasmobranch fisheries, p 182Google Scholar
  38. Mundy-Taylor V, Crook V, Foster S, et al (2014) CITES non-detriment findings guidance for shark species: a framework to assist Authorities in making non-detriment findings (NDFs) for species listed in CITES Appendix IIGoogle Scholar
  39. NOAA (2014) Indian Ocean-South-East Asian (IOSEA) Marine Turtle Memorandum of UnderstandingGoogle Scholar
  40. Panjarat S, Bennett N (2012) Responses of fishers to a 25-year seasonal closed measure on the Andaman Coast of Thailand, University of Victoria, VictoriaGoogle Scholar
  41. Reid K (2007) Monitoring and management in the Antarctic—making the link between science and policy. Antarct Sci 19:267–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Rosser AR, Haywood MJ (2002) Guidance for CITES scientific authorities: checklist to assist in making non-detriment findings for Appendix II exports. IUCN, GlandGoogle Scholar
  43. Shepperson J, Murray LG, Cook S et al (2014) Methodological considerations when using local knowledge to infer spatial patterns of resource exploitation in an Irish Sea fishery. Biol Conserv 180:214–223. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2014.10.013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Stake RE, Denzin NK, Lincoln YS (2005) The Sage handbook of qualitative research. Sage Publications, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  45. Stanley DR, Wilson CA (1990) A fishery-dependent based study of fish species composition and associated catch rates around oil and gas structures off Louisiana. Fish Bull 88(4):719–730Google Scholar
  46. Stelzenm V, Lee J, South A et al (2012) Practical tools to support marine spatial planning: a review and some prototype tools. Mar Policy. doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2012.05.038 Google Scholar
  47. Thornton TF, Scheer AM (2012) Collaborative engagement of local and traditional knowledge and science in marine environments: a review. Ecol Soc 17:8. doi:10.5751/es-04714-170308 Google Scholar
  48. Tobias TN (2010) Living proof: the essential data collection guide for indigenous use and occupancy map surveys. Ecotrust Canada and Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs (UBCIC), VancouverGoogle Scholar
  49. Turner RA, Polunin NVC, Stead SM (2015) Mapping inshore fisheries: comparing observed and perceived distributions of pot fishing activity in Northumberland. Mar Policy 51:173–181. doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2014.08.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Turvey ST, Fernández-Secades C, Nuñez-Miño JM et al (2014) Is local ecological knowledge a useful conservation tool for small mammals in a Caribbean multicultural landscape? Biol Conserv 169:189–197. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2013.11.018 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Turvey ST, Trung CT, Quyet VD et al (2015) Interview-based sighting histories can inform regional conservation prioritization for highly threatened cryptic species. J Appl Ecol 52:422–433. doi:10.1111/1365-2664.12382 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. UNEP-WCMC (2012) Review of significant trade: species selected by the CITES animals committee following CoP15. UNEP-WCMC, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  53. Usher PJ (2000) Traditional ecological knowledge in environmental assessment and management. Arctic 53:183–193. doi:10.14430/arctic849 Google Scholar
  54. Van Strien AJ, Van Swaay CAM, Termaat T (2013) Opportunistic citizen science data of animal species produce reliable estimates of distribution trends if analysed with occupancy models. J Appl Ecol 50:1450–1458. doi:10.1111/1365-2664.12158 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Vincent ACJ, Sadovy de Mitcheson YJ, Fowler SL, Lieberman S (2013) The role of CITES in the conservation of marine fishes subject to international trade. Fish Fish. doi:10.1111/faf.12035 Google Scholar
  56. Walters CJ, Holling CS (1990) Large-scale management experiments and learning by doing. Ecology 71:2060–2068CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lindsay Aylesworth
    • 1
  • Ratanawaree Phoonsawat
    • 2
  • Pholphisin Suvanachai
    • 2
  • Amanda C. J. Vincent
    • 1
  1. 1.Project Seahorse, Institute for the Oceans & FisheriesUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada
  2. 2.Department of FisheriesMinistry of Agriculture and CooperativeBangkokThailand

Personalised recommendations